Bloomberg Law
Free Newsletter Sign Up
Bloomberg Law
Advanced Search Go
Free Newsletter Sign Up

Zoom Seeks to Squash Proposed Privacy, Security Class Action (1)

Dec. 3, 2020, 5:14 PMUpdated: Dec. 3, 2020, 8:42 PM

Zoom Video Communications Inc. is urging a California federal court to dismiss a proposed class action seeking to hold the teleconferencing company liable for a bevy of alleged privacy and security flaws, including susceptibility to “Zoombombings.”

The plaintiffs’ first amended consolidated class action complaint failed to show the company caused personal harm, Zoom alleged in its motion to dismiss Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The company is also arguing that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects it from liability related to meeting disruptions by third parties, or Zoombombings.

Rachele Byrd, an attorney at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP who represents the plaintiffs, declined to comment.

The plaintiffs are accusing Zoom of illegally sharing user data with Facebook Inc. and LinkedIn Corp. and invading users’ privacy, according to the first amended consolidated class action complaint.

The plaintiffs allege Zoom acted negligently and violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, among other statutes.

Judge Lucy H. Koh should dismiss the claims because the plaintiffs failed to “allege facts sufficient to show cognizable harm,” Zoom argued in its motion. The plaintiffs also didn’t show that Zoom had misled them about its encryption practices, the company alleged.

“Unlike the ‘data-brokerage strategy’ Plaintiffs claim other internet companies have, Zoom’s business model is based on generating revenue by selling subscriptions, not user data,” lawyers for Zoom wrote in the motion to dismiss.

Cooley LLP represents Zoom. The plaintiffs are represented by Wolf Haldenstein, Ahdoot & Wolfson P.C., Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Bottini & Bottini Inc., and Gibbs Law Group LLP.

The case is: In Re Zoom Video Communications Privacy Litig., N.D. Cal., No. 5:20-cv-2155, motion to dismiss 12/2/20.

(Updates story with attorney response.)

To contact the reporter on this story: Jake Holland in Washington at

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Kibkabe Araya at; Keith Perine at